Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Derby County.


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, pikerman said:

A bit harsh 😆 just trying to take a balanced view.Don’t know if EFL arbitration is binding or not, if not then the only course of action would take it to court

I wonder if this has the potential to be like a regular court case, where if they don't like the outcome, they can appeal to the Supreme Court and if they don't like that decision they go to the European Court of Human Rights?

Or in this case European Court of Football Rights 😁

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    136

  •  

    107

  •  

    101

  •  

    97

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So the millionaires have called a draw in the biggest *** competition and we could get on with the football Enjoyed the day, observations, comforting to see the same fake stone island stall in De

my reply    

Absolute scenes when this year's accounts are published and we were set to fail FFP by 3m until Mr Morris stepped in. Think that would turn the entirety of Derbyshire into the world's largest sal

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, pikerman said:

A bit harsh 😆 just trying to take a balanced view.Don’t know if EFL arbitration is binding or not, if not then the only course of action would take it to court

The rulings are binding, you have to accept that and the outcomes before they start. Plus once you do you accept that the issue is football related with all the obligations and legal certainties that come with it.

Gibson and Boro do, Derby and MM/Q dont

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnglianRed said:

I wonder if this has the potential to be like a regular court case, where if they don't like the outcome, they can appeal to the Supreme Court and if they don't like that decision they go to the European Court of Human Rights?

Or in this case European Court of Football Rights 😁

Not sure CAS would hear it or MM would accept them as being independent 😅

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Naisby said:

MM has ignored this since 2019, it’s now 2022. Any clock ticking deadline isn’t down to Gibson. Any legal costs so far will be for letters as Derby under MM and administrators think doing nothing on this makes it go away. This is a football issue and the rules of membership have a clearly stated path to deal with it. Only one party doesn’t want that. 

Even the buyers agree that it’s something that needs to be sorted via arbitration they just won’t touch it with a barge pole unless MM and Q take the financial hit for it if it happens.

And that is the crux of the problem, Morris and his administrators have taken the head in the sand option and rather than engage in discussion have preferred to use the media to belittle the claim. The administrators need to be very careful as a claim of not acting in the interests of the creditors would bring crippling damages

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Naisby said:

The rulings are binding, you have to accept that and the outcomes before they start. Plus once you do you accept that the issue is football related with all the obligations and legal certainties that come with it.

Gibson and Boro do, Derby and MM/Q dont

The rulings of the arbitration committee may be binding but I doubt if they would have the scope to settle damages therefore both parties have to agree a sum or go to court and the circle starts again

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pikerman said:

And that is the crux of the problem, Morris and his administrators have taken the head in the sand option and rather than engage in discussion have preferred to use the media to belittle the claim. The administrators need to be very careful as a claim of not acting in the interests of the creditors would bring crippling damages

Very true, MM has his chosen administrators, his chosen preferred bidder and the aim of getting all the money back he wants and the creditors take the losses.

only nasty spiteful malicious vindictive Gibson is stopping this. 😀

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pikerman said:

The rulings of the arbitration committee may be binding but I doubt if they would have the scope to settle damages therefore both parties have to agree a sum or go to court and the circle starts again

No, you accept them fully, then the EFL will appoint an independent board to deal with it, so it’s usually retired high court judge/s with experience in the relevant area of dispute.

you would think it’s a kangaroo court Derby were facing it isn’t, it’s just independent and not bound by legal precedent from other courts. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@pikerman imho the reason MM wants it to go to court is that under current administration laws and precedent in order for a company not to be liquidated your looking at creditors taking a whopping 70-75% hit in their financial claims.

Any debts that Derby owe to MM are meaningless to him as he has already got the only real asset any club has after its fans, he owns the stadium. In order to get it he agreed to many legal codices to be put on its future use so if he doesn’t sell it to a new owner he has a big stadium with no tenets. Just look at Darlo’s Ground to see what happens to that.

So if he goes to a court of law under these circumstances the purely footballing claim Boro and Gibson have against them isn’t likely to succeed, this is why he and Q say it’s meaningless. In the EFL arbitration they are not bound by this, they will view the case as it is, that’s what he doesn’t want as he will be forced to answer some very incite-full questions put by lawyers and have to answer them fully or stay silent. In the legal court his lawyers will very probably due to legal precedent get the case dismissed before he gets asked anything.

like all fans I base this on reading on here, Derby sites and the net in general I have no private sources of info.

But to me outside of any financial liabilities the big thing I think MM wants to avoid are questions that require answers. I don’t know what these questions are or what they are trying to illicit but I feel it’s they answers he would be forced to give or ignore that’s really the beef between MM and Gibson.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Naisby said:

@pikerman imho the reason MM wants it to go to court is that under current administration laws and precedent in order for a company not to be liquidated your looking at creditors taking a whopping 70-75% hit in their financial claims.

Any debts that Derby owe to MM are meaningless to him as he has already got the only real asset any club has after its fans, he owns the stadium. In order to get it he agreed to many legal codices to be put on its future use so if he doesn’t sell it to a new owner he has a big stadium with no tenets. Just look at Darlo’s Ground to see what happens to that.

So if he goes to a court of law under these circumstances the purely footballing claim Boro and Gibson have against them isn’t likely to succeed, this is why he and Q say it’s meaningless. In the EFL arbitration they are not bound by this, they will view the case as it is, that’s what he doesn’t want as he will be forced to answer some very incite-full questions put by lawyers and have to answer them fully or stay silent. In the legal court his lawyers will very probably due to legal precedent get the case dismissed before he gets asked anything.

like all fans I base this on reading on here, Derby sites and the net in general I have no private sources of info.

But to me outside of any financial liabilities the big thing I think MM wants to avoid are questions that require answers. I don’t know what these questions are or what they are trying to illicit but I feel it’s they answers he would be forced to give or ignore that’s really the beef between MM and Gibson.

 

Cohesively put Naisby and I agree. There is little doubt that there is skulduggery afoot, the only question is who will end up paying the price

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pikerman said:

Cohesively put Naisby and I agree. There is little doubt that there is skulduggery afoot, the only question is who will end up paying the price

Honest Derby fans, same as clubs like Bury and others, that’s what I think Gibson is fighting, stopping owners putting clubs and fans and communities at risk so they can get to the premier league and get the big money there.

Gibson learnt how football clubs are run, what some owners will do and how deceitful and self serving footballs authorities are.

He only seems to get any recognition nowadays outside of Teesside for the footballing fights he takes on. He has fought every case he has been able to fight and bring up against clubs and owners cheating and putting the fans at risk, he has refused to deal with agents who want to get as much money for their clients which really should be going back into the game.

I don’t see him as some sort of saint and I’ve got many a beef about his actions and decisions when it comes to Boro, my original one being not redeveloping Ayresome Park and going to the Riverside 😀 But on the wider footballing world and how it’s run and the battles that need to be fought so that football and it’s clubs are there for the fans and community then Steve Gibson will always stand up for them. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Naisby said:

I don’t see him as some sort of saint and I’ve got many a beef about his actions and decisions when it comes to Boro, my original one being not redeveloping Ayresome Park and going to the Riverside 😀 

 

I know this isn't relevant to the thread, but uh...what? 

You'd rather we'd stayed at Ayresome Park with a much smaller capacity (after modifications to meet the Taylor Report) and a ground that was falling apart than move to a new, purpose built stadium ready for European football?

I'm no footballing nostradamus but I'm not sure we'd have attracted the likes of Juninho, Ravanelli, et al if so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Denzel Zanzibar said:

I know this isn't relevant to the thread, but uh...what? 

You'd rather we'd stayed at Ayresome Park with a much smaller capacity (after modifications to meet the Taylor Report) and a ground that was falling apart than move to a new, purpose built stadium ready for European football?

I'm no footballing nostradamus but I'm not sure we'd have attracted the likes of Juninho, Ravanelli, et al if so.

No the club knew the general hospital was closing, I would have liked a redevelopment of Ayresome Park not a move to the Riverside wasteland. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17198160/derby-compensation-legal-battle-middlesbrough-wycombe/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/17364157/middlesbrough-compensation-derby-ffp-cheating/

The annoying thing is that it was Alan Nixon himself that wrote the articles for The Sun claiming Gibson was initially demanding £45m, but will now settle for far less.

He's now acting like he never wrote that and this is all new information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...